Opinions On Climate Change Protest

The main problem is that protests almost never change anything, they’re an incredibly inefficient way of bringing about change

What a bizarre response.

Obviously a protest by itself, cannot single-handedly bring about the change it desires - only the legislature and/or executive have the power to do that.

But protests are certainly an effective way of drawing attention to an issue, gaining media coverage and thereby getting politicians to talk about it. One obvious example of protests working were the poll tax riots, that led to the abolition of the policy shortly after it was implemented as they demonstrated how unpopular it was. All a protest can generally do is keep an issue live and ensure it stays on the radar.

But really, what other way do ordinary people have to 'bring about change' - the only option your average, non-politican, person has at their disposal is to attend a protest and do their bit to draw attention to the issue.

Why do people always point to the poll tax riots? It’s a complete anomaly. Climate change doesn’t need more publicity in order to be driven to the top of the political agenda, everyone already knows it exists (I doubt a few school children are going to convince those who believe it’s a hoax or not largely because of human activity). The problem is that governments seldom think beyond the life of that government, being as climate change is unlikely to have a significant impact on the UK before the next election it slides in importance.

If you want to bring about change protesting hasn’t been shown to be the way to bring it about. With the exception of the poll tax riots I’d challenge you to name three successful protests on major issues. If people want climate change to be driven to the top of the agenda vote in those who’ll put it to the top of the agenda.

You said 'never', you were incorrect. The protests in East Berlin were also rather successful in bringing about serious change. The Florida protests last year played their part in encouraging various states to pass various (albeit limited) restrictions/checks on purchasing guns. I would argue that protests regarding tax avoidance/evasion have been successful in drawing attention to the issue and encouraging various measures to attempt to tackle such.

Again, I'm yet to see you suggest more efficient or better ways for ordinary people to 'bring about change' than by protesting.

Climate change very much does need to be kept a live issue, especially in places like America where the President and his party mostly deny climate change or are completely indifferent to tackling it.

Protests draw attention to an issue and get it talked about. The more that happens the more the media and politicians talk about it. That's all you can ever expect from a protest.

Arguing that protests are dumb because they can't single handedly change government policy is stupid logic, that's not generally what protests claim they will achieve. All they can do, generally, is keep an issue on the radar and get politicians talking about it.

I think you should have another look, I actually said ‘almost never’. I would say in the minor changes to gun legislation in a handful of states had more to do with the Parkland shooting than the protests. Those tax avoidance protests were so successful that Starbucks paid a whopping 2.8% tax last year.

Really? You must have ignored the final sentence in the post you just quoted then.

What evidence do you have to support your conclusion that most Republicans deny climate change?

Climate change is talked about all the time, there’s no reason to think a few more articles in the Guardian are going to convince people who don’t care that it’s a big deal.

1. I never said they were dumb, I said they are inefficient.
2. Can you provide an example of a large protest that had the stated aim of making politicians discuss an issue and create more public awareness? I would say protests such as the anti Iraq war protests and the protest against bombing Libya were intended to directly influence the decision of the government.

Your whole argument appears to be based on the premise that protests are only worthwhile if they achieve wholesale change by themselves. Which is obviously silly. Only a tiny handful of protests will ever achieve that, but if a protest can make any change at all, it's still worthwhile.

Minor changes are still better than no changes, and even if a protest achieves minor changes, it has been successful. There has been plenty of mass shootings, the response and protests after this, in my opinion, certainly had an impact in encouraging some change, which is really all anyone could reasonably expect from ordinary people.

Sure, but then what if you live in a Tory safe seat and the person that most represents you is in the green party? Or what if, as often happens there isn't a candidate supporting the issue you should support. Protests can obviously be useful in showing an existence of support for a certain position, which those seeking election can then seek to promote.

I never said most 'deny' it. I said most would either deny it or are completely indifferent to it, shown by the Republican's opposition to just about any laws protecting the environment, their withdrawal from the Paris accord, and the removal of existing environmental protections.

The more it's talked about, and the bigger issue it has, the more likely politicians of all persuasions will take it seriously. Particularly on the right, their exists a combination of denial, scepticism and indifference to climate change. If it obviously becomes a more decisive issue to voters, that may well change.

If a protest gains publicity and has politicians and the general media, not jsut the Guardian, talking about it, it's obviously a good thing. Though again, you appear to have adopted the ludicrous position that unless a protest changes everything by itself, that it's a failure.

1. I don't doubt they're inefficient, i've merely said generally there are few more effective or efficient things ordinary people can do to bring about change, or raise awareness of an issue.

2. Obviously all/most protests want the government to change policy, that's a given. But obviously people going on protests know that they don't have the legal power or authority to do that. All they can do, is do their bit to raise the issue and get it talked about. Then it's up to the politicians.

One of the main ideas behind the strikes is that climate change will damage our future if there isn’t enough action to stop it. Therefore going to school, which is supposed to prepare us for the future, will be pointless without climate action. Hence the striking from school.
I don’t think it fair to say the organisation is a disgrace, they have managed to create a very large movement across the whole globe, I don’t know of any other youth organisations that have managed anything near this scale. Even if they don’t achieve their aims, they have inspired many young people to be more politically involved which will be beneficial in many ways later on.