cxtinac
It seems to me that the unfortunate reality is that hitting people with facts has either already succeeded (that's most of us reading this thread I would guess), or it will cause eyes to glaze over, and the cognitive dissonance to kick in to high gear; so we do need to do something different to persuade the rest to do something useful.
But, simply "making friends and telling stories" (to trivialise the article) is useless, there are very many resources on 'nonnormative non-violent' action and at least one study that confirm that it is statistically effective (dense scientific paper). Here's some resources:
- Nonviolent Direct Action and the Struggle for Climate Justice: A Perspective from 350 Seattle
- Foreign Policy News Nonviolent action: Why and how it works
- Organising Stories and Lessons from the 350 Organising Story Telling Lab
- International Center on Nonviolent Conflict 198 Methods of Nonviolent Action
There's a great searchable database (two actually - US and "rest-of-the-world") of litigation here.
From the About page:
This website provides two databases of climate change litigation: (1) a U.S. Climate Change Litigation database and (2) a Global Climate Change Litigation database, which includes all cases except those in the U.S.
The U.S. Climate Change Litigation database is a joint project of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School and Arnold & Porter. Michael B. Gerrard, then a partner at Arnold & Porter and now Faculty Director of the Sabin Center, and J. Cullen Howe, an environmental law specialist at Arnold & Porter, first created the U.S. Climate Litigation Chart in 2007. In 2017, it was relaunched as an interactive and searchable database. The U.S. chart is updated on a monthly basis, and currently includes 1621 cases* with links to 10550 case documents.
The Global Climate Change Litigation database was created in 2011 and is updated regularly. It currently includes 750 cases, with links to 1557 case documents. At present, the Global database features cases from over 55 countries. The database also includes climate litigation cases brought before international or regional courts or tribunals.
Edit: For example, here's a quick list of all 37 climate change cases involving Exxon.
... remember the 21st century’s most important physical fact: warm air holds more water vapor; July set a new record for U.S. thunderstorms
aka hot, wet & stormy.
Interesting, but there's no mention in the article of the $/ton CO2 they will pay that I could see.
Presumably it will have to be close to the market (say $100 $/ton today?).
If they go lower there will be no uptake, if they go much higher they will burn through the $3.5B and only achieve a short blip in the market for no real long term benefit.
But I imagine $3.5B used carefully might have some interesting effects.
Edit: I'm not sure $3.5B is the relevant number (but the only one quoted in the article).
Why the down votes on this? I had a quick look at the github repo and it looks pretty neat to me. I must be missing something...
Anyone care to enlighten me?
Here's the job listing.
[...] Anticipate and manage RBC’s reputation related to climate transition activities and proactively mitigate any risk in this area [...]
aka greenwashing
Good link, thanks.
'Non-violent non-normative action' is particularly effective apparently.
I think that label would mostly apply to Just Stop Oil, XR etc.
they find that what’s particularly effective is “non-normative non-violent action.”
Link added to quote