Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
They should resort to bioterrorism like farmers throwing animal feces everywhere. Then the police officers would just shrug their shoulders and say nothing can be done.
Meanwhile the fascists in AfD get a pass...
Well if the state wants to use violent direct action (incarceration)...
Someone in the German judicial and political system got paid by the petrochemical industry.
Not just for this.
Either the judiciary in my home country has watched 12 Monkeys too often, or it is not as independent of the industry as it pretends to be. Either way, this is completely absurd and a declaration of the bankruptcy of our legal system.
Jesus not just the uk huh fucking hell
Meanwhile, dummy waving supporters of the Nächste Generation group are strolling through the streets and terrorising pidgeons in parks unhampered. /s
Uh, yeah?
Civil disobedience can be illegal, and engaging in it can land you in jail. Many famous activists did end up in jail at one point or another for doing illegal things. It's a risk you have to accept if you want to engage in those protests, and if a little bit of jail-time is sufficient to deter folks from the movement, then they probably aren't particularly invested in the cause.
Yes, but then you charge and convict for civil disobedience, not for forming a criminal organisation.
"Yeah, that guy who jaywalked SHOULD be charged with murder, jaywalking is a CRIME, PEOPLE!"
Civil disobedience is not a charge, because it is not the crime. Civil disobedience is when someone deliberately breaks a law that they believe is a bad law. For example if you think that the law against indecent exposure is unjust. Your act of civil disobedience might be to stand in front of city hall with a large group of like minded people and strip naked. If you get arrested and charged you will be charged with indecent exposure not civil disobedience. As indecent exposure is the act of civil disobedience you are making.
Civil disobedience is not inherently criminal in the western world (that would be horrible) - criminal acts are. In this case, the civil disobedience involves crime, and the organization explicitly plans illegal action, fitting the bill of what that law prohibits.
If them being convicted based on those laws are a problem -change them. That's often part of the purpose of civil disobedience, highlighting problematic laws, swaying public opinion and getting lawmakers to change them.
"Forming a criminal organisation" is a charge they specifically invented to counter RAF terrorism in the 60s and 70s. Equating people who glue themselves to roads with that is just idiotic.
That's always the case with laws (they can and will have unintended consequences). My personal opinion is that laws should expire unless explicitly renewed.
Anyway, if the law as it is written is a problem, it should be changed - not selectively applied. I really have a problem with the american legal system where law is primarily made in court and not in parliament.