They met their goal: a ban on new licenses for oil and gas.
Yay!
this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2025
43 points (100.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
6322 readers
299 users here now
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.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
In a statement, the campaign group said: "Just Stop Oil's initial demand to end new oil and gas is now Government policy, making us one of the most successful civil resistance campaigns in recent history. We've kept over 4.4 billion barrels of oil in the ground and the courts have ruled new oil and gas licences unlawful."
The Labour Government has said it will not issue licences for new oil and gas exploration, while a series of recent court cases have halted fossil fuel projects, including oil drilling in Surrey, a coal mine in Cumbria and the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields in the North Sea.
Why is it framed this way in this article and headline? They're stopping because they succeeded.
The NYT takes huge ad payments from the oil industry. Industry reps get regular access to reporters in non-news contexts as a result, and this spills over into the background beliefs and attitudes a lot of them have
Really? Source on the claim that ads influence individual journalists? That seems odd to me, since the journalists writing articles would have no clue about advertising.
Do you know about your company’s marketing mechanisms? Most people don’t, whether it’s about placing or receiving ads.
It's not a direct impact; it's that the ad buys get the oil folks access in a way that you and I don't have. The journalists end up at things like conference panels with oil folks, and not so much with activists or scientists, and the editors choose who to put on a given story.
Oh, so the journalists are too stupid to think for themselves because they went to a sponsored conference?
Would you be brainwashed by a single conference?
Why are you arguing in bad faith? That’s obviously not what they meant.
Your opinions and thoughts are shaped by the totality of your experiences. That single conference is just one example. And journalists are not super human- they are human just like me and you; subject to influence and sometimes yielding to “status quo” industry norms.
Lemmy is absolutely overwhelmed with bad faith posters with dubious motivations.
woosh
Maybe try rereading everything?
You’re not attempting to try and understand what the other commenter is trying to communicate, instead making assumptions and jumping to conclusions. That is the definition of arguing in bad faith.
Also, what do you mean by woosh? Were you joking or something? I am not familiar with this term if it’s supposed to mean something.
It's supposed to be the sound of a joke flying over one's head. Basically means "it was a joke".
Good. Go throw Spaghetti-O's at billionaires instead. Opening the can, optional.
Freeze the can and use a hyneman/savage cannon to fire it through their chest.