"Climate activists are stopping me from getting to work" is a really, really bad perception to have, when one of the key interventions needed is to get people out of cars, and onto trains, busses and bikes.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
I posted some evidence on this higher up the thread. There are a couple of studies which suggest the same thing, namely that JSO isn't popular but its actions increase support for moderate climate action: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-024-01444-1
It's called the radical flank effect. The direct action isn't popular, but it raises the profile of the issue and legitimises moderate activists. I'm not a massive fan of JSO, but they aren't idiots.
I do hope this is playing out with JSO, but I worry they are such a turn-off for the random member of the public that they actively make things worse. It's anecdotal, but whenever they come up in conversation I hear people actively say JSO make them want to drive/fly/pollute more.
I'm trying to imagine the sort of person who would change their behaviour if it weren't for JSO. Just as a thought experiment, how would they justify that to themselves? I suspect a lot of these people are just looking for excuses to carry on as usual.
I think that's true to an extent, but I also think that people deciding whether to fly to France/nearby or take the train, or make some other decision where there is a meaningful sacrifice, if they feel environmentalists are annoying and preachy they are less likely to do so.
The problem is that their targets are ridiculous. Why Stonehenge and not shell’s headquarters? Why blockade a motorway when you could target a particular brand of fuel forecourts? Hurt the polluters not the public.
You can achieve the same ends without looking like self indulgent clowns.
Comments
You can achieve the same ends without looking like self indulgent clowns.