Just Stop Oil

[chilango]

Burning Man is explicitly not 'normal people' though is it? Both symbolically and materially. That's it's schtick.

 

[chilango]

I worry that anything that gives the State/capital an open goal to paint climate change measures as being against 'normal people' just means they'll be a backlash that in the long run will make our job much harder.

...and they're already doing this against far more 'sensible' and measured stuff (ULEZ, Net zero etc). I don't think we can pander to that line of thinking.

 

[LDC]

It’s literally a bunch of obscenely wealthy techbros burning shit in the desert FFS

No, it's not that simple. And they were just blockading people driving in, not people flying in private jets which would be a different action.

But even if your argument was 100% true, it doesn't stop them going or reduce emissions, but it does present an image of a few people blocking others going on holiday/to a festival which I think is a damaging image overall.

Burning Man is explicitly not 'normal people' though is it? Both symbolically and materially. That's it's schtick.

OK, fair enough, lazy terminology by me. Yeah, it's a (historically) countercultural event that's now just a massive pseudo-counter cultural thing that all sorts of people go to, like Glastonbury but less commercial from what I understand (no selling on site I think for example).

 

[LDC]

...and they're already doing this against far more 'sensible' and measured stuff (ULEZ, Net zero etc). I don't think we can pander to that line of thinking.

Yeah, I think that's the least important point really. And I don't think you 'pander', but if you don't take it into account as a context and danger then you go down some pretty wild avenues for what you can do for actions. And you counter this backlash and danger by making strong coherent political arguments that mesh with your actions. These type of things do neither of those.

And what's the wider strategy; gets in the press, pisses people off, then what? Escalate to piss more people off? Hope the pissed off people will vote for more climate measures next election?

 

[chilango]

Yeah, I think that's the least important point really. And I don't think you 'pander', but if you don't take it into account as a context and danger then you go down some pretty wild avenues for what you can do for actions. And you counter it by making strong coherent political arguments that mesh with your actions. These type of things do neither of those.

I think you need to be aware of the danger, and prepared to argue, yes.

I don't think you should let it limit your actions.

 

[Artaxerxes]

What a fucking stupid thing to do.

Nah burning man is the ultimate tech bro “I’m alternate and rich” wankfest

 

[chilango]

I also agree LDC on the lack of strategy.

 

[editor]

On what grounds though? Genuinely open to being convinced.

My arguments are that it doesn't stop or reduce any carbon emissions. It doesn't target the class or capital that makes profits from hydrocarbon extraction or carbon emissions. It pits people in the same class against one another. I'd argue it also makes climate activism look moralistic and po-faced and probably much easier to paint any climate activism as being against ordinary people.

It also falls into painting the whole thing as being about personal choices and carbon emissions and footprints which we really need to get away from, it's a massively problematic way of viewing climate, and one large parts of climate activism completely replicate in their activity.

The only argument I can see is that it keeps it in the news, which I think could be done with all sorts of other actions. Maybe makes some case about people flying to Burning Man, but in terms of worthwhile plusses balanced against all the negatives I mentioned I struggle to see how that's a good argument.

Just about everyone flies into Burning Man or drives huge gas guzzling vehicles - it's like an advert for why you should buy or hire a monster RV/SUV.

Burning Man's carbon footprint is primarily from transportation to the remote area. The CoolingMan organization[clarification needed] has estimated that the 2006 Burning Man was responsible for the generation of 27,000 tons of carbon dioxide, with 87% being from transportation to and from the remote location.[218] The Sierra Club has criticized Burning Man for the "hundreds of thousands" of plastic water bottles that end up in landfills, as well as ostentatious displays of flames and explosions.

Burning Man's 2007 theme, "Green Man," received criticism for the artwork Crude Awakening, a 99-foot oil derrick that consumed 900 gallons of jet fuel and 2,000 gallons of liquid propane to blast a mushroom cloud 300 feet (91 m) high into the sky

Burning Man - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Rob Ray]

Yeah I'm not seeing a lot of cheap motors in that traffic jam, they're all big shiny gas guzzling trucks driving long distance.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Just about everyone flies into Burning Man or drives huge gas guzzling vehicles - it's like an advert for why you should buy or hire a monster RV/SUV.

Seems sensible then, to have hundreds of them sitting idling and polluting the planet as a message against polluting the planet.

 

[pesh]

No, it's not that simple.

Yes, it is.

 

[editor]

Seems sensible then, to have hundreds of them sitting idling and polluting the planet as a message against polluting the planet.

Oh right, best they do nothing then.

 

[Rob Ray]

I mean the same complaint can be leveled against any disruption of business as usual. Paint on a wall and someone will be along in short order to point out you're buying it from a polluting industry.

 

[chilango]

Seems sensible then, to have hundreds of them sitting idling and polluting the planet as a message against polluting the planet.

Block 'em long enough and they'll stop idling.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Bit of a false dichotomy there.

In reply to editor.

 

[lazythursday]

I think you can make a strong argument that Burning Man is an example of a wasteful profligate culture, especially the luxury tech-bro camps - and is therefore a decent target, like private jets / luxury yachts / other forms of conspicuous luxury consumption. But every action against that kind of excessive carbon usage / environmental footprint is going to be painted as the actions of puritan killjoys. Somehow there has to be a message about redistribution in there.

In this case, perhaps it would have been better to work with the remaining more radical elements of BM to target some of the luxury camps, rather than blocking the road for everyone?

 

[editor]

This was the traffic created by Burning Man last year.





It's a celebration of gas guzzling.

 

[platinumsage]

They should've all got the Greyhound to Reno and then it's only a week's hike.

 

[editor]

They should've all got the Greyhound to Reno and then it's only a week's hike.

Or maybe just done something really radical like held the festival somewhere with decent public transport links.

 

[Rob Ray]

All those off-roaders surrounded by endless miles of flat desert, stuck in a traffic jam.

 

[LDC]

Yes, it is.

Right, that's convinced me it's a great political strategy then.

I think something can be a logical and internally consistent thing to do regards a topic, but strategically a mistake. I think targeting Burning Man is logical when thought of in terms of carbon emissions and climate change, but strategically a mistake. It's like animal rights people smashing up a local butchers; it's logical and coherent with their position, but a mistake on a wider political change level.

It's also noticeable that most people have picked up on the argument that it enables us to be painted as po-faced etc. which is the weakest point. But what about these other points I said?

Does it reduce or stop carbon emissions?
Does it target those that profit from hydrocarbon extraction and usage and continue to push for their usage?
Does it get away from the damaging idea that's is all/mostly about personal choice?

If not (and I think it does none of those things) then what does it do? The only argument I can see is it makes the case for some cultural shift to happen away from events like this. Which isn't completely worthless (as there does have to be a massive cultural shift for sure) but it's a bit like shouting at people to stop driving when there's terrible and expensive public transport as an option. And that has to be balanced with the other negatives.

Still open to being convinced.

 

[edcraw]

Just about everyone flies into Burning Man or drives huge gas guzzling vehicles - it's like an advert for why you should buy or hire a monster RV/SUV.

And it’s in the fucking desert so everyone’s running AC!

 

[LDC]

And it’s in the fucking desert so everyone’s running AC!

FFS, is this the political level we're at? I bet they had some meat in their supplies as well the climate destroyers.

 

[editor]

FFS, is this the political level we're at?

At a time when conserving energy is seen as an essential move to battle against climate change, promoting an entertainment event that actively and needlessly encourages mass flights and the increased consumption of gas, electricity and resources because it's kinda wacky and cool to hold the event in the middle of a fucking desert does seem a bit off.

 

[chilango]

I think it might be worth distinguishing - for a moment at least - between:

• a legitimate/deserving target
• a strategically useful target

They're not always the same.

I don't think (personally) there is any doubt that Burning Man is a legitimate target. It (and it's attendees) absolutely deserve the attentions of protesters.

...but how useful a target they are, in terms of 'advancing the struggle', I'm less sure.

 

[LDC]

I think in my future world events like Burning Man, festivals etc. should happen, hopefully even more of them. And yeah for sure in a different less resource intensive way, but to start targeting them now I think is flawed as a political strategy.

 

[LDC]

I think it might be worth distinguishing - for a moment at least - between:

• a legitimate/deserving target
• a strategically useful target

They're not always the same.

I don't think (personally) there is any doubt that Burning Man is a legitimate target. It (and it's attendees) absolutely deserve the attentions of protesters.

...but how useful a target they are, in terms of 'advancing the struggle', I'm less sure.

But with capitalism and hydrocarbon usage so embedded in the world you could argue pretty convincingly that almost anything is some kind of legitimate/deserving target so it almost makes that metric worthless (or at least very unimportant) when compared to the second point.

That is also partly what makes climate politics and actions so hard (and with great potential...) as it's just everywhere and requires a complete re-making of the world.

 

[chilango]

I think in my future world events like Burning Man, festivals etc. should happen, hopefully even more of them. And yeah for sure in a different less resource intensive way, but to start targeting them now I think is flawed as a political strategy.

No Burning Man on a dead planet, innit?

 

[LDC]

No Burning Man on a dead planet, innit?

Or burning men everywhere for all on a dead planet!

 

[chilango]

But with capitalism and hydrocarbon usage so embedded in the world you could argue pretty convincingly that almost anything is some kind of legitimate/deserving target so it almost makes that metric worthless (or at least very unimportant) when compared to the second point.

Depends how/why you are judging any specific action.

...in turn, this frames responses as 'condemnation' versus 'suggestion' perhaps?